[BostonCard]

But the one point of interest in terms of covid is that Biden blamed him for both the covid deaths AND the damage to the economy. Obviously, that’s logically inconsistent. The bottom line is that it’s way too early to write history on covid - and the problem is exacerbated by the hysteria of Presidential politics. Essentially, the obsession with Trump and the American ‘failure’  is the gateway to magical thinking.

That's not logically inconsistent.  There is a lot of evidence to show that there is not necessarily a trade-off between containing the virus and the hit to the economy, dating back to the 1918 influenza pandemic.  The bottom line is that the economy is more dependent on individual actions that government restrictions, and if the government fails to get the virus under control, people are not going to go out and spend money, regardless of whether the government lets them.  On the other hand, countries that manage to get the virus under control are able to open up more quickly, and when they do open up, the population is willing to resume normal activities.

Consider, for example, Sweden, which is often held up as an example for not shutting their economy down in response to the virus.  Sweden has had a fatality rate of 58.3 per 100,000, which is substantially higher than its Nordic neighbors (Denmark 11.2/100,000, Finland 6.2/100,000, Norway 5.0/100,000).  Now, your point would be made if Sweden's GDP had been minimally impacted, but alas GDP in Sweden fell by 8.3% in the second quarter.  That was worse than Denmark (-7.4%), Norway (-5.1%) or Finland (-4.5%).  In other words, not only did Sweden wind up with a much worse impact of COVID-19 than its neighbors, its economy was hurt more than its neighbors.  This suggests that not only is there not a tradeoff between controlling the pandemic and economic growth, but actually there is a direct correlation between how well you control the pandemic and growth.

BC

[BostonCard]

But the one point of interest in terms of covid is that Biden blamed him for both the covid deaths AND the damage to the economy. Obviously, that’s logically inconsistent. The bottom line is that it’s way too early to write history on covid - and the problem is exacerbated by the hysteria of Presidential politics. Essentially, the obsession with Trump and the American ‘failure’  is the gateway to magical thinking.

That's not logically inconsistent.  There is a lot of evidence to show that there is not necessarily a trade-off between containing the virus and the hit to the economy, dating back to the 1918 influenza pandemic.  The bottom line is that the economy is more dependent on individual actions that government restrictions, and if the government fails to get the virus under control, people are not going to go out and spend money, regardless of whether the government lets them.  On the other hand, countries that manage to get the virus under control are able to open up more quickly, and when they do open up, the population is willing to resume normal activities.

Consider, for example, Sweden, which is often held up as an example for not shutting their economy down in response to the virus.  Sweden has had a fatality rate of 58.3 per 100,000, which is substantially higher than its Nordic neighbors (Denmark 11.2/100,000, Finland 6.2/100,000, Norway 5.0/100,000).  Now, your point would be made if Sweden's GDP had been minimally impacted, but alas GDP in Sweden fell by 8.3% in the second quarter.  That was worse than Denmark (-7.4%), Norway (-5.1%) or Finland (-4.5%).  In other words, not only did Sweden wind up with a much worse impact of COVID-19 than its neighbors, its economy was hurt more than its neighbors.  This suggests that not only is there not a tradeoff between controlling the pandemic and economic growth, but actually there is a direct correlation between how well you control the pandemic and growth.

BC